click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
security and foreign policy issues as opposed to his very robust domestic agenda? jon: lindsey graham was on with his last hour and pretty critical about the job the department of homeland security -- which, after all, is an arm of the administration -- did in the tsarnaev case. want to play a clip. >> my problem with this administration is their policies are failing. they do not believe that we're at war. they ignored signs and warnings from libya. we haven't had one person detained as an enemy combatant for intelligence-gathering purposes since he's been president. jon: is this starting to resonate with voters, do you think? >> i don't know yet that we've seen that. but we could see it over time. i think it pretty much depends on how the public views the president's handling of these incidents, and do they think that the president is keeping them safe. as we saw under president bush, you can have a horrific attack on the home lambed, and if you respond -- homeland, and if you respond in a way the public feels you should respond, they like your response, they're going to feel good ab
was the first president to make humans rights a cornerstone of u.s. foreign policy. tell me about your conversation with president carter. >> one of the things that interested me, he was--what he said about impunity, where he said that he varied a bit from more pure rights activists. he said he wasn't necessarily opposed to giving wretched dictators impunity if it meant that they would step down sooner. they were afraid of being prosecuted by the international criminal court, and because of that they're not willing to give up. they stay and they fight. but if you gave them impunity, and you were not going to prosecute them, they might be willing to step down sooner and save more people sooner. >> michael: it's a cut your loses type of a policy. >> yes more practical. >> michael: it seems that way. let's move to representative john lewis. he's a really spiritual man. how were you able to capture this through your photography? >> i think he simply gave it to me. we had a wonderful conversation first. i interviewed him for the text that accompanies each photograph then we went outside his
. and yet promoting human rights isn't a foreign policy, and it's not a foreign policy priority simply because it's the right thing to do. it's time to our own security. it's tied to the possibilities of prosperity and of nations living by rule of law and of nation's living in peace. countries where strong human rights prevail our countries where people do better, economies thrive, rule of law is stronger, governments are more effective and more responsive, and they are countries that lead on the world stage and project stability across their regions. strong respect for human rights isn't merely an indicator that a country is likely doing well. it actually unleashes a countries potential, and it helps to advance growth and progress. so i ask you just to think of the country like burma for a minute. because of steps towards democratic reform and stronger human rights protections, a country that had been isolated for years is now making progress. as it reached where we wanted to be? know, but it's on the road. it's moving. and more people are contributed economy and participating in the
's investment in foreign-policy is national security insurance. there is nothing foreign about foreign policy anymore. smartcan make the small,. w vestments upfront and avoid more costly conflicts and greater burdens down the road. , we'vepast few months seen developments underscore the state -- stakes for having a strong and -- strong american presence in the world. that was a positive step toward stability in the volatile region of the world where we need partnerships. the committee is more than immersed in suyyruiaia. we have treated millions to humanitarian relief -- we have provided millions to humanitarian relief. i expect we will talk about syria somewhat today. having returned from beijing and north koreathe issue took center stage, we are reminded once again that america is the guardian of global security. we should be proud of that. one not turn our back on keys nor will we hesitate what we need to do to defend our allies. if budget is an analyst patient of our values and priorities -- this budget is an illustration of our values and priorities. i have a record of wanting to do defi
remarkable. i read sometimes left-wing authors who think america's foreign policies this steaming economic thing to grab every spare penny anywhere to be found in the world. that's implemented by certain aspects of our policy at the state department and the diplomats generally are quite insistent on this vote they assume america has the strongest economy in the world and always will have the u.s. does need to maintain serious commercial services the way foreign countries do that promote or exports abroad. they sort of do but there is no comparison to other nations which view protecting their export interest as a key goal of their diplomats abroad so yeah you're basically right on that. >> hi. it's nice to see you. my question is concerning foreign american investments. so in her book -- claimed that between 1988 to 2008 the u.s. government took nearly 2000 proposal applications for business in the united states so as you know the government can give more tax revenue so do you support full investment and what do you think about it? thank you very much. appreciate it. >> okay. the standing i
them use versal rights. yet, promoting human rights isn't a foreign policy. it is not a foreign policy priority because it is the right thing to do. it's tied to our own security. it is tied to the possibilities of prosperity an nations living by rule of law and of nations living in peace. countries where strong human rights prevail are countries where people do better. economies thrive, rule of law are stronger, governments are more effective and they are countries that leade wod stage and project stability across their regions. strong respect for human rights isn't just an indicator that a country is doing well, it unleashes a country's potential and helps to advance growth and progress. i ask you to think of a country like berma for a minute. cause of steps towards democratic reform and stronger human rights protections a country that has been isolated for years is now making progress. has it reach wrd we want it to be? no but it is on the road and it is moving. more people are participating it ding to faster growth and development. by starting to embrace universal rights the bermes
rights foreign policy. it is not a foreign policy priorities and because it is the right thing to do. it is tied to our own security. it is tied to the possibility of prosperity and nation's living by rule of law. countries were strong human- rights prevail are countries where people do better. economy strive, rules of law are better. there are countries that lead on the world's station project stability across the regions. strong respect for human rights is not merely an indicator that the country is likely doing unleashes a country's potential. it helps to advance growth and progress. of a countrythink like burma for a minute. because of its steps towards democratic reform, a country that has been isolated for years is now making progress. has it reached for rwanda to be? no. but it is on the road. it is moving. more people are contributing to the economy and participating in the government, leading to faster growth and development. by starting to embrace universal rights the government is opening the doors to a stronger partnership with their neighborhood -- with their neighborhoo
is a wonderful country, but by the way, it make -- look, if you look at foreign policies, you can see europe is as it is and germany, and ask what we never can do because we have the history of france. italy, for superran integration at well but without france it will never. so, of course i would prefer to have the stronger position of france, but by the way, i am optimistic that they will say -- the are doing a lot of making reforms, as they implemented some -- make a lot of decisions. they would not have -- cut expenditures, deficit by cutting expenses, and relation is two-thirds cutting and one-third -- maybe you can send from one from the negotiation team to palace to help, and overcome the different position. uk would have been better from the very beginning if uk would have combine itself as part of the european continent, but they didn't. but of course, mentioned continental europe. not uk. if you look at -- we have situation -- at if you look at e situation properly, and has to be careful. i think it's -- my -- the more we succeed in our common european -- the sooner uk can join. the
foreign policy. and there's no disagreement about that in my country, that parliament passed last year unsl a policy, a resolution which def the icelandic objectives in the arctic. so together with the other countries, we hope to play a constructive part, and evidence of this was that a few months ago, one of our april civil servants and officials was chosen as the first director general of the secretary of the rctic council. >> the icelandic is coming out of financial turmoil. what would you consider the future of the krona, and are you at all considering any alternative currency for iceland? >> i think it's a positive indication of how we have moved out of the financial crisis, but i can come here to the national press club, and only when six minutes are left, i get that question orkt financial issue. nobody would have believed that four or five years ago. but that is the state of co together again and talk about how we recovered from the financial crisis and how we dealt with the crisis in a different way from many oer countries, how we did not follow the established orthodoxies of
pillar of our 21st century foreign policy. there's no disagreement about that in my country. the parliament passed last year anonymously a policy resolution which defined the icelandic objective in the arctic. so together with the other nordic countries we hope to play a constructive part and evidence of this was that few months ago one of our april servant was the first director general of the secretary of the arctic. >> several currency questions. the icelandic money is coming out of financial turmoil. what would you consider the future of the money? and are you considering any alternative currency for iceland ? >> i think it's a positive indication of how we have all dealt with the financial crisis. i can comment on the national press club only six minutes are left and i get that question. [laughter] of the financial issues. nobody would believe that for a five years ago. without in state of affairs we could perhaps come together again and talk about how we're the financial crisis and how we dealt with a crisis in a different way from many other countries. how we did not
with u.s. foreign policy by including them in the program? >> yes, but i am not in favor of waiting standards to do it. been whatndard has you described, which is a 3% rejection rate. some countries go slightly beyond that because there is not the uniform standard applied by embassies throughout the world. some embassies have more liberal policy with regard to applications. instead of outsourcing decision making, would you like to see in touch with regards to diplomatic and security and economic considerations? >> i would have to review that. there are several established criteria and the act with respect to the current standards. the government provides a reciprocal visa waivers. the government issues secure machine readable passports. the government certifies the program to incorporate biometric identification into their passports. the government reports the thefts of blank passports. that they maintained a low immigrant refusal rate. that they maintain less than 2% projection for travel for non- immigrant applicants. those are the standards and the current law. you guys have the
would you pursue to the domestic and foreign policy? >> i want to thank you for hosting this debate. it is a great honor to be here an i want thank my colleague for being here as well. i want of offer my condolences to all the families of all the victims and offer my thanks to the first responders, the doctors, the nurse, our citizens who, i think behaved so valley lently and in such a compassionate way. it's been a long week. my thoughts and prayers are with those who are recovering. i will continue to do what what i've have been doing on homeland security issues. one of the differences between myself and mr. markey is our voting record on homeland security. i think one of the great parts of what happened this week in terms of the rescue and the coordination and the capture of these terrorists was the coordination between the different agency, the joint terrorism task force. task to create the force. mr. markey vote against that proposal. i voted for funding for homeland security. mr. markey voted against that. i will continue my priorities that i have. it is probably why the fir
, what specific changes would you pursue in our domestic and foreign policies o make us safer? >> first, i want to thank you for hosting this debate. i also want to thank my colleague, ed markey, for being here as well. before we begin, i just want to offer my condolences to all the families of all the victims and offer my thanks to the first responders, to the docs, nurses, to our citizens who i think behaved so valiantly in such a compassionate way during this past week. it's been a long week. again, my thoughts and prayers are with all those who are recovering. in terms of what i would do, i would continue to do what i have been doing on homeland security issues. i think one of the stark differences between myself and mr. markey is our voting record on homeland security. i think one of the great parts of what happened this week in terms of the rescue and the coordination and the capture of these terrorists was the coordination between the different agencies, the joint terrorism task force. i voted to create the joint terrorism task force. mr. markey voted against that proposal. repea
see canada from my porch. >> a foreign policy expert? this is an opportunity to allow these people to come to the united states and work here and raising that visa is an important part of why this is a pro-growth policy. que from president reaganth a farewell address wherebee ing cn the hill and said that if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, the doors were open to anyone with the will and hard to get here. this is a good reminder that we have to keep working on this bill and i would wonder if you wanted to comment as to why that was meaningful to you in this context. >> the jack kemp republican position has always been immigrant welcoming. you see this coming stronger both from the business community and from the religious community, communities of faith. i was in a meeting with the head of the republican party in 2000. 10 major trade associations, i was there as the taxpayer guy. they went around the table about what is important. they said do something bad to trial lawyers, capitains between thos project and that the and the chair said thank you very much and got u
component of his foreign policy, and obviously, this just emphasizes that. >> [inaudible question] >> the mexicoan government has expressed its interest in that agenda. in that regard, bringing president obama to mexico, what programs can we expect along the road and secretary kerry, -- >> [inaudible] >> some countries in latin american countries were on the back burner for several years. is it your express intent to reach out to the region? >> we have agreed to enlarge our agenda, and we are going to be talking about initiatives that have to do with high level engagement into our economic dialogue. we will be talking and find a mechanism to talk in terms of the vocation, research and innovation. so those issues and structures around them will be on the agenda, and the talks, initially discussed by president obama and president nieto. >> the answer is profoundly, yes, we do intend, i intend to, personally. and, in fact, i had intended to try to travel to the region next week, but because of the events this week, and because of some other things happening, i've had to postpone that
right or wrong, you'll never get in trouble. if you want to be critical of foreign policy because you belief, as a citizen -- remember, we have a thing called the constitution. all men are created equal. everybody, at least from the beginning, white, male, 2 1, with property, could vote. since then we've expanded -- well, i'm not being sarcastic because in terms of the world to have any white male who was sovereign, that we were sovereign. the american revolution declared the people sovereign rather than a king or queen. you couldn't have a king or queen taking your land away because they had finch it to you through sovereign rights. so if every citizen has a right to say what they should or should not do in our government, we would think we could respect that, and yet at the very beginning of the iraq war, when susan sarandon and tim robbins spoke out against the war, they had their invitation to talk to the baseball hall of fame withdrawn. and right after that i had a crew from fox news come to my house to interview me, because i don't go to the studios anymore. they want me? they
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)